10.1007/s40095-021-00450-9

Embodied energy and carbon footprint comparison in wind and photovoltaic power plants

  • Antonio Augusto Morini*1,
  • Dachamir Hotza2,
  • Manuel J. Ribeiro3,
  1. Electrotechnology Academic Department (DAE), Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Santa Catarina (IFSC), Florianópolis, SC, BR
  2. Graduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering (PGMAT), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, BR
  3. Materials Research and Development Center (UIDM), Polytechnic Institute of Viana Do Castelo (IPVC), Viana do Castelo, PT

Published in Issue 2021-11-27

How to Cite

Morini, A. A., Hotza, D., & Ribeiro, M. J. (2021). Embodied energy and carbon footprint comparison in wind and photovoltaic power plants. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 13(2 (June 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-021-00450-9
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract This work aims to evaluate comparatively the environmental impact of solar photovoltaic and wind power plants. The conceptual design and the initial preliminary design steps in the material selection process were considered. The assessment was made using two different metrics, embodied energy (EE) and carbon footprint (CF). Five different configurations of wind power plants and a set of photovoltaic panels in a power plant were evaluated. In the wind power plants, the generator, the materials, the height, and the tower type were varied. For manufacturing the towers, the following parameters were considered: material, height, and generator power. The photovoltaic power station can provide up to 1.5 MW. The materials selected for embodied energy and carbon footprint assessment followed two criteria: the greatest mass percentage participation and the greatest value of embodied energy and carbon footprint of each material used. For the calculation of distances travelled from suppliers of raw materials and components used in the photovoltaic panels and wind power plants, the considered destination was the city of Viana do Castelo (north of Portugal), one of the regions with tradition in wind power production and installations. The result is favorable to the concrete column, which achieved the best result of EE and CF. The Oebels 1.5 MW tower with an 80-m concrete column showed an EE of 0.0150 kWh/kWh (19.71% a 3.0 MW 120-m concrete column) and a CF of 4.77 gCO 2 /kWh (21.90% of the Rocha 3.0 MW 120-m concrete column). Comparing the 1.5 MW photovoltaic plant with the concrete column 1.5 MW wind power, the result is favorable to the concrete column. Taking into account that the values of the photovoltaic power plant are EE of 0.0638 kWh/kWh and a CF of 16.21 gCO 2 /kWh, the concrete column 1.5 MW represents 23.51% of the EE and 29,43% of the CF. This advantage of the concrete towers repeats for the other columns. The results show that the best configuration is the wind power plant with a concrete column. For further studies, a comparison between concrete and truss tower at the same work conditions is suggested.

Keywords

  • Embodied energy,
  • Carbon footprint,
  • Life cycle assessment,
  • Wind power,
  • Photovoltaic power,
  • Materials selection

References

  1. Lieberei and Gheewala (2017) Resource depletion assessment of the renewable electricity generation technologies—comparison of the life cycle impact assessment methods with focus on mineral resources (pp. 185-198) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1152-3
  2. Bouraiou (2017) Experimental evaluation of the performance and degradation of single crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules in the Saharan environment (pp. 22-30) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.056
  3. APREN.: APREN—Associação de Energias Renováveis. Evolution of the Installed Capacity of the Different Sources of Electricity Generation in Portugal between 2000 and 2016. 2020. [acesso em 14 05 2020]
  4. https://www.apren.pt/en/renewable-energies/power
  5. Bento and Fontes (2015) The construction of a new technological innovation system in a follower country: Wind energy in Portugal (pp. 197-210) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.037
  6. Estanqueiro, A.I., Ferreira de Jesus, J.M.: Energia Eólica em Portugal: situação actual & perspectivas de futuro.
  7. AIP—Poruguesse Industrial Association
  8. , pp. 1–4 (1996) (Available only in Portuguese)
  9. Figueira, T.V.G.: Energia Solar em Portugal—Mapeamento do potencial fotovoltaico com recurso a Sistemas de Informação Geográfica.
  10. Run—Repositório Universidade Nova
  11. , p. 87 (2020).
  12. IEA.: IEA—renewables information 2019. Comprehensive historical review and current market trends in renewable energy: statistics report.
  13. IEA–Paris
  14. . [Online], 2019. [Acesso em 18 05 2020].
  15. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-information-2019
  16. Maia, V.M.J.: Analysis and design of offshore wind tower: parametric study. Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Master Thesis (2009) (Available only in Portuguese)
  17. Kaldellis and Apostolou (2017) Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart (pp. 72-84) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.039
  18. Callister, W.D. Jr.: Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 6th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA (2003)
  19. Shackelford, J.F.: Introduction to materials science. Pearson education, 8th edn. USA (2016)
  20. Ljungberg (2007) Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products (pp. 466-479) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2005.09.006
  21. Ribeiro et al. (2013) A life cycle framework to support material selection for eco-design: a case study on biodegradable polymers (pp. 300-308) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.043
  22. Thackara.: In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex Word, vol 1, p 321.MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)
  23. De Benedetti (2010) Eco Audit: a renewed simplified procedure to facilitate the environmental informer material choice orienting the further life cycle analysis for Eco designers 51(5) (pp. 832-837) https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.MH200918
  24. Ashby (2012) The CES EduPack Eco audit tool—a white paper 2(1)
  25. Zarandi (2011) A material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable design 57(9) (pp. 885-903) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3362-y
  26. Khare (2012) Selection of materials for high temperature latent heat energy storage (pp. 20-27) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2012.07.020
  27. Broeren (2016) Early-stage sustainability assessment to assist with material selection: a case study for bio-based printer panels (pp. 30-41) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.159
  28. GRANTA.: GRANTA material intelligence. CES Selector. [Online] GRANTA, 2021. [Acesso em: 05 12 2018.]
  29. https://www.grantadesign.com/
  30. Ashby, M.F., Johnson, K.: Materials and design: the art and science of materials selection in product design, vol 1, 3rd edn, p. 416. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford (2013)
  31. Finnveden (2009) Recent developments in the life cycle assessment (pp. 1-21) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
  32. ISO 14040.: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)—Environmental Management (2006)
  33. Cabeza (2013) Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: a review (pp. 536-542) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.017
  34. Dixit (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review (pp. 1238-1247) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016
  35. Koskela, L.: Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction, p 75
  36. .
  37. CIFE—Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University. Stanford: s.n., Technical Report #72 (1992)
  38. Treloar, G.J. A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework. Ph.D. Thesis. Deakin University (1998)
  39. Crowther, P. Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy. 1999, p. 6.
  40. Langston and Langston (2008) Reliability of building embodied energy modeling: an analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies 26(2) (pp. 147-160) https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701716564
  41. Ding, G.K.C.: The development of a multi-criteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance for built projects and facilities. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia (2004)
  42. Ashby (2012) CES-EduPack for Eco design—a white paper 5(1)
  43. Alwan and Jones (2014) The importance of embodied energy in carbon footprint assessment 32(1) (pp. 49-60) https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-01-2013-0012
  44. Rydh and Sun (2005) Life cycle inventory data for materials grouped according to environmental and material properties (pp. 1258-1268) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.05.012
  45. Oebels and Pacca (2013) Life cycle assessment of an onshore wind farm located at the northeastern coast of Brazil (pp. 60-70) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.10.026
  46. Rocha, A.B.: A comparative evaluation between towers for tubular steel wind turbines and precast concrete in the Serra do Mel region. Undergraduate Thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (2016) (Available only in Portuguese)
  47. Henriques, J. F.: M. Design of high-height cross-linked wind towers (150 m): Modeling and comparative analysis with self-supporting tubular structures. Master Thesis, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal (2012) (Available only in Portuguese)
  48. Granja, A.V.C.: Study and optimization of a 1 MW photovoltaic plant. Master Thesis, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal (2017) (Available only in Portuguese)
  49. Lopes, R.J.C.: Shading effect on photovoltaic panels. Master Thesis, Instituto Superior de Lisboa, Portugal (2013) (Available only in Portuguese)
  50. ABNT NBR 16990.: Instalações elétricas de arranjos fotovoltaicos—Requisitos de projeto (2019)
  51. Arvesen and Hertwich (2012) Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind power: a review of present knowledge and research needs (pp. 5994-6006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.023
  52. IEA.: IEA—International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy, p. 45. IEA Publications, Carlet, France (2010)